The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

— This week, Advocacy for Animals presents an article on a new international organization dedicated to the establishment of objective standards for animal sanctuaries and to the accreditation of those sanctuaries. That organization is the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). The article was written by Patty Finch, GFAS Executive Director.

What if six months ago you made a contribution to an organization that claimed to be an animal sanctuary, and only now discovered the truth about the facility? Perhaps some of its animals are sold to a ranch that allows canned hunts, meaning the animals are shot by “hunters” for “sport,” with no way to escape. Or perhaps the exotic animal facility you supported for its educational efforts turned out to imprison tigers in small enclosures or breed them in a basement. One mission of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries is to ensure that donors are not deceived in this egregious manner and to support and shine a spotlight on legitimate and outstanding sanctuaries worldwide. These sanctuaries do the difficult and dedicated work of providing animals with the highest standards of humane care, free of any form of further exploitation.

Fortunately, many animal sanctuaries are exactly what they claim to be: an end, finally, to all forms of abuse and exploitation for the animals in their care. For these animals, whose profound losses can never be regained, sanctuaries are the line in the sand that says never again. It is over. You are safe now. At last.

Examples of outstanding sanctuaries are many. Asiatic black bears, cruelly incarcerated in Chinese bear farms and milked for their bile, may be rescued and rehabilitated at the Animals Asia Foundation’s bear sanctuary. After enduring years of suffering, these bears can at last move and roam, feel grass beneath their bodies, and be free of needless pain.

Cows, pigs, chickens, sheep and other animals exploited by the agribusiness industry find refuge in the rolling hills and grass at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary in Maryland, Farm Sanctuary in New York, and on the other shore of the United States at Animal Place in California, to name just a few of these stellar facilities.

Young African elephants, orphaned when their mothers are shot by poachers, once again enjoy a time of play in mud pits and watering holes at Daphne Sheldrick’s orphanage outside of Nairobi, Kenya.

Numerous species of monkeys, formerly languishing in laboratory cages or barren zoo enclosures or people’s homes where they were kept as “pets,” can climb trees and play with others of their own kind at the Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary in Texas.

The most fortunate of exploited African and Asian elephants, often aging cast-offs of the circus and zoo industry, may find a final home of relative freedom and significant bonds with fellow elephants at The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee or the Performing Animal Welfare Society Wildlife Sanctuary in northern California.

These sanctuaries, and others like them, walk the talk of recognizing each animal as an individual whose quality of life matters. These sanctuaries represent a pinnacle of humanitarianism, in which humans recognize their obligation to not only to stop exploitation of those at our complete mercy, but also to make retribution, the best that we can, for the often unspeakable wrongs done to these individual animals.

GFAS, and all true sanctuaries, maintain that a sanctuary is a facility that rescues and provides shelter and care for animals that have been abused, injured, or abandoned or are otherwise in need. GFAS holds that a true sanctuary does not allow any of the following:

commercial trade

invasive or intrusive research

unescorted public visitation or contact in wild animal sanctuaries

removal of wild animals for exhibition, education, or research.

All too often, however, the public is misguidedly led to believe that any captive animal facility, especially those with exotic wild animals is a sanctuary. The operators of these “pseudo-sanctuaries” prey on this misconception to buy and sell wildlife and get financial support from the unwitting public.

Tigers provide a sad example of exploitation hidden under the guise of sanctuary. One hundred years ago there were an estimated 100,000 tigers remaining in the wild. Today, there are well fewer than 5,000. Yet more than 5,000 tigers are thought to be held in private hands across the United States today. But these tigers are not in naturalistic, humane enclosures with their behavioral, physical, emotional, and environmental needs met. They may be caged behind wire fencing with broken, protruding barbs. They stand on concrete, which may be splattered with their own feces. The only relief they get from the baking sun is a metal tub of filthy water. This is not a sanctuary: it is a prison.

With recent high-profile incidents of animal sanctuaries closing their doors due to lack of funds, or being investigated for improper animal care, there has been no widely known and respected international organization to turn to for help or for objective standards specific to sanctuaries. With no such reliable standards, any commercial operator or roadside menagerie can call itself an “animal sanctuary,” and the public is hard-pressed to distinguish between legitimate operations and substandard ones.

Animal protection leaders from a number of organizations came together recently to found the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) in response to the virtually unchecked and hidden animal exploitation of inhumanely kept wildlife and the wildlife trade itself; the flood of horses, captive wild parrots, and abandoned “pet” reptiles suddenly without homes; the growing demand for sanctuary for farmed animals and animals used in labs; the plight of animals left in need by natural disasters and wars; and the need for the public to be able to differentiate exploitative operations from legitimate sanctuaries. These animal protection leaders include Adam Roberts of Born Free USA United with API , Michael Markarian of The Humane Society of the United States, Kim Haddad, DVM, of Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition, and Philip Wilson of World Society for the Protection of Animals, all of whom serve as officers of GFAS. They serve as committed individuals, not as representatives of their parent organizations.

The GFAS mission is focused on the following goals:

to facilitate coordination of animal sanctuaries around the world,

to establish an agreed-upon accreditation and certification process to objectively verify that animal sanctuaries are providing animals the standards of care that they deserve,

to provide animal sanctuary operators with specific guidelines on the humane care of various animal species and assistance to develop their organizations, and

to educate the public about the need to treat all animals humanely, including refraining from keeping wild animals in captivity as pets, as well as the need to actively support accredited sanctuaries and the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Thus, GFAS does not intend to run animal sanctuaries, but to help sanctuaries help animals. GFAS will provide an objective and realistic accreditation process for the field, as well as a forum for exchanging information and best practices. Sanctuaries will be aided in striving for continuous improvement, in attracting more support from funders, and in providing the best care possible for rescued animals. GFAS will help facilities coordinate the placement of animals and will offer sanctuaries more opportunities for participation and recognition in the larger animal protection community.

GFAS is not the first accrediting organization for sanctuaries in the United States or other nations. While there have been sanctuary associations formed in the past, none has ever obtained worldwide recognition. Donors, the media, and members of the public have not recognized a single source of information on animal sanctuaries, partly because there have been so many isolated sanctuaries and no single, unified, international accrediting organization. Sanctuaries accredited by GFAS will have the highest level of credibility with donors, the media, and members of the public and will be clearly distinguished from pseudo-sanctuaries and substandard facilities.

The GFAS accreditation will be a “seal of approval” to reassure donors and foundations internationally. In nations with an accreditation process in place, GFAS will bring the benefits of increased collaboration and opportunities for mentorship, with the goal of raising the level of care and building capacity whenever possible. GFAS will foster the synergy of sanctuaries working together in our global community, where the exploitation of the wildlife trade in particular must be addressed internationally.

GFAS will offer other ways to concretely help sanctuaries. No accrediting organization for sanctuaries has achieved the level of funding necessary, for instance, to offer grants and be of real service to honorable sanctuaries across the globe as they strive to meet the incredible challenge of providing a fiscally sound infrastructure to meet the daily and long-term needs of animals in the most humane manner possible. Offering compliance grants and fundraising solutions is a top priority for GFAS, recognizing the tremendous challenge sanctuaries face in meeting operating costs in these economic times.

GFAS will soon be introducing itself and reaching out to sanctuaries with supportive services and a clear process for sanctuary accreditation, as well as species-specific standards for bears, birds, primates, equines, chickens, big cats and other felids, pigs, elephants, canids, reptiles, and small ruminants. (Sanctuaries for companion cats and dogs are not included under the GFAS umbrella.) With peer review, these standards will be continually updated to reflect the gains made in understanding how to best serve the needs of the animals in sanctuary care. The GFAS goal in working with sanctuaries is to ensure that sanctuaries are honored, recognized and rewarded for meeting important criteria in providing care to the animals in residence without putting unreasonable burdens on over-extended and under-funded sanctuary operators.

—Patty Finch, Executive Director, GFAS

Images: tiger playing in water with pumpkin at sanctuary—Janice Clark, PAWS; tiger in tin tub—Kim Haddad, DVM.

How Can I Help?

Visit the GFAS at www.sanctuaryfederation.org to sign up for a free webinar (Web seminar) on how to help your favorite sanctuary write a successful grant application; it’s something you can do from home, even if you’ve never written a grant before.

Check out the animal care and use policies of any animal sanctuary before you donate. Especially look for no commercial trade, no invasive or intrusive research, no unescorted public visitation or contact in wild animal sanctuaries, and no removal of wild animals for exhibition, education, or research.

Ask sanctuaries if they are accredited or planning on pursuing accreditation. The answer should be yes!

Books We Like

The author of Through Animals’ Eyes founded Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation (WRR) in 1977. WRR, located in Texas, rescues, rehabilitates, and releases wild animals who have been injured, orphaned, or displaced—more than 5,000 of them a year. It also provides a shelter and adoption service for domestic animals (dogs, cats, and others) and a permanent sanctuary for rescued farm animals (goats, cows, pigs, etc.). This book shares some stories to which Cuny has been witness in her years of wildlife rescue and gives a feel for the minute details of the world as it is experienced by animals. The first story in the book, about a family of ducks (two parents and a dozen ducklings) who experience a sudden loss while out for a swim one day, is keenly and empathetically observed. Through this and similar episodes, the reader learns more about what life is like for members of various species and, as Cuny says, “their unlimited depth of feeling and innate ability to care for one another.”

The truth is more like this: This so-called Global Federation is the product of several animal rights organizations. These people know little about the actual care of the animals and care even less because their agenda is to prevent humans from using animals, at all, for anything. In serving this agenda they have already killed millions of domesticated animals, tens of thousands of exotics, and have successfully obtained legislation that violates our right to own and use animals.

Sanctuaries always need additional support. In fact, for sanctuaries with websites, there is almost always a link for â€œvolunteersâ€ and often a link for a â€œwish listâ€. Check those out. And of course, one of the most important ways you can help a sanctuary is to donate funding. So consider raising funds for a sanctuary. Before doing any fundraising in the name of the sanctuary, of course, be sure to clear it with the sanctuary. Besides the traditional rummage sales and bake sales, there are many ways to raise funds online. Try selling items on ebay.
Or use a website such as Firstgiving to solicit funds online. Another way to raise funds is to help a sanctuary with its grant writing. GFAS offers free webinars on grant writing so check those out. High school students who are good writers can definitely learn grant writing! Getting permission to set up a table with photos and donation cans in a busy urban store parking lot can result in your collecting a few hundred dollars to a thousand or more, working one busy Saturday, dawn to dusk. If you live near a sanctuary that you know is reputable, there is usually plenty of dirty work to be done onsite for a sanctuary. Usually, by policy, there will not be interaction with the animals, especially if the animals involved are wildlife. But there are always areas to be mucked, mowed, cleaned, repaired, landscaped, constructed, painted and inspected; food to be prepared; items to be washed; files to be organized; data to be entered; mail to be opened, email to be answered and more. Depending on your skills, you can also offer to do a youtube video…whatever your skills, a sanctuary can use your help! Do keep in mind that care of the animals always comes first, so donâ€™t be offended if it takes a bit of time for a sanctuary to return a phone call or email, even when you are offering to donate or help. Onsite, donâ€™t expect a lot of handholding or small talk, especially from staff. Sanctuary staff are usually stretched thin in terms of their time, and often their emotions. Keep in mind that running a sanctuary often means having to care for sick and injured animals, dealing with death, and having to say â€œnoâ€ to avoid overextending the resources of the sanctuary, when the heart wants to say â€œyesâ€, and vacations are few and far between. Donâ€™t add to the burden by being high maintenance and donâ€™t take it personally if someone is a bit gruff, as you donâ€™t know what crisis they may have just had to deal with. Sanctuary folks, though, are in this work because they have huge hearts and great compassion, so mostly you can count on lots of smiles and thanks. Thanks for wanting to help the animals and good luck to your community service organization!

Tom, it’s not clear why you are so against the GFAS. You seem to be resorting to conspiracy theories and broad, prejudicial statements. You express an objection to “animal rights organizations,” as if they are all alike, and inherently unreasonable, destructive, and unjustified. But that shorthand doesn’t parse here the way you think it does.

This is an article about accrediting sanctuaries, not getting rid of them. Surely we can all agree that there need to be standards for animal sanctuaries. We have a fairly open commenting policy. If you have an objection to the idea of accrediting sanctuaries, then say what it is. If you think that the organizations that are establishing GFAS have a secret agenda, then please likewise reveal whatever vested interests you may be protecting. Do you run or support a sanctuary that you think wouldn’t meet the accreditation standards of the GFAS? If you just want to have a public forum in which to cast aspersions on our authors and the organizations we support, perhaps you would be better advised to start one yourself.

The HSUS has a long standing “policy” against private ownership of exotic animals. Letting them be the ones who decides who owns them enables them to achieve this objective a lot faster. This isn’t just a conspiracy theory. There is a lot of material out on the net about their misconduct in the area of puppy mills, in gathering donations for Katrina victims that were not used to help Katrina victims, and the misconduct of various officers of the HSUS, past and present.

The HSUS has been animal rights since 1980, as an official policy. It is best if they just admit this, because I can back up this statement. “Born Free USA” used to be API, an animal rights organization that has always wanted to end animal ownership, and one of its wonderful stunts was to send a pair of characters around to make a video, which they carefully edited, to discredit big cat owners. They lied to owners to get in, and the video itself contains numerous lies. The less said about CWAPC the better, but really, you need to vet people out before you allow them to use the respectability of the Encyclopedia Britannica for their own ends.

It can’t be denied that the HSUS employs one John P. Goodwin who has been jailed for vandalism and used to teach college students how to burn down buildings. He is even a vice president. Look up “Wayne Pacelle” and “quotes” on Google. Good old “one generation and out” for all animals owned by humans. It can’t be denied that the API or the HSUS are animal rights organizations. Anyway, as I said, these people are vocal and very active opponents to the ownership of animals, and they now want to control which owners are “accredited” which should be obvious even from the article at the top of this page.

I like the Center for Consumer Freedom site, the Activistcash site, books like Kathleen Marquardt’s “AnimalScam and Patti Strand’s “The Hijacking of the Humane Movement.” Anyway, letting the HSUS, the API/Born Free America, and CWAPC run an accrediting organization is exactly like letting PETA and the ALF run one. The GFAS’s agenda is not a secret. Read the websites belonging to the organizations that are forming this. Figure out what you think they will do with this kind of power. It’s crazy. Even the CDC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service quotes Markarian’s screeds and I think it’s insane.

My vested interest is in human rights in general and the human-animal bond. Humans have an absolute right to own and use animals, and the organization in this article wants to take away that right. I am defending the human right to eat animals, to use animals for food and clothing, and to breed them to maintain their numbers. The API, the HSUS, and CWAPC have continually attacked our rights. This also creates the issue that they do not deserve to have this kind of power, thus GFAS should not be allowed to incorporate and it should not be allowed to accredit anyone for any reason.

Did you catch that line up there about “Cows, pigs, chickens, sheep and other animals exploited by the agribusiness industry “? Are they kidding? They want to accredit people who keep food animals? I don’t support asking “mother may I” in regards to keeping tigers, let alone sheep that I plan to barbecue on the 4th of July, or the farm where I get my milk and eggs. And from that paragraph, what do you guess that one of my vested interests is in? That’s right, the continued health of the human race.

They actually want us to believe that this is not an animal rights organization when they talk about “exploited” animals? Are you going to go for that, Admin? I’m all for exploitation. Exploited animals are cared for, have homes, are encouraged to increase in numbers, and humans work with them to increase their viability. I am all for the agribusiness industry that makes the food that I eat, and I don’t believe in vegetarian or vegan diets no matter how many buildings they set on fire or how many crazy laws are passed. The only reason for that line to be up there, about animals “exploited” by agribusiness, is because they intend to use GFAS as a base from which to attack farmers, something that they might also deny in other writings.

There’s no secret conspiracy because none of this material is secret. It’s been on the web for a long time. People have been tracking public statements by the principals. The attacks against our rights are apparent in this article and on their websites. How much plainer does it need to be? They are hiding right out in the open, maybe?

Thank you for explaining your position. We don’t see “animal rights” as a bad thing by definition, and you do. We’ll just have to differ on that. We disagree on basic principles, such as whether it’s appropriate for humans to own wild animals, something you think is a human right. As much as you attempt to brand the GFAS and similar groups as the extremists, calling the right to own exotic animals a “human right” (a term that is usually reserved for things like the right not to be held in slavery or subjected to torture, and the right to freedom of expression, something all of us are engaging in right now) is not a mainstream position. We admire the work of many of the organizations you would tar with the imagined insult “animal rights group,” and we disagree that certain points of their agendas are at odds with human “rights.” We are here to present articles that come from that point of view, and to allow comments both supportive and dissenting, but we cannot engage repeatedly in discussions that argue over first principles. I’m sorry, but our commenters will just have to live with that. And article-length comments such as one more than 2,600 words long that was submitted in the last day or two are not appropriate. We will engage in discussion as possible, but we’re not here to provide a soapbox for others nor to defend our articles over and over, especially when groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom (see SourceWatch.org page for an exposition of that group’s agenda) are cited as the source of information against the groups we talk about. You can take it for granted that we support the right of the GFAS to exist and pursue its work.

Allow me to correct you on one point. Born Free USA did not “used to be” API. Born Free USA was established in 2002 as the United States branch of Born Free (http://www.bornfree.org.uk). Born Free was started in the UK by the actors who starred in that 1966 film, which was based on Joy Adamson’s true story about Elsa the lioness. Born Free USA merged last year (2007) with the Animal Protection Institute, and the name of the combined organization is Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute (http://www.bornfreeusa.org/).

I think it is important that animal sanctuaries be monitored, otherwise there is a real risk that animals could be exploited either by the sanctuary being more of a zoo, or a hoarding situation arising.

Some well-meaning people will establish a sanctuary, but not be able to afford to keep the animals they take in. This can lead to neglect.

Of course there are hundreds of wonderful animal sanctuaries who make a real difference and these sanctuaries should be recognized and supported.

As an independent animal advocate, I’d like to offer some clarification on Tom’s “one generation and out” quote.

That quote is frequently taken out of context by anti-humane front groups in order to misrepresent Wayne Pacelle as some sort of animal hating monster who wants to exterminate all life from the planet.

The truth is that this quote dates back 18 years, to a 1993 agricultural forum in which Pacelle was asked whether heirloom breeds of livestock required the same protection as endangered species of wildlife. He replied:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding… One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

This was NOT a statement that any species should be “eliminated”, as opponents of animal welfare have repeatedly tried to claim. It is a clear and unambiguous statement that creations of human selective breeding do not require explicit government protections to ensure the continuation of their breeds if the breeders choose not to perpetuate that bloodline.

Those who willfully and knowingly misrepresent this quote as some sort of attack on animals immediately raise questions about their own credibility.